Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means or False Promise of Marriage
Introduction
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which came into force on 1 July 2024, introduced several changes to India’s criminal justice system. One of its significant provisions is Section 69, which deals with sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling that promise.
The provision aims to protect women from situations in which a person obtains sexual relations through deliberate deception, particularly by giving a false promise of marriage. It recognises that consent obtained through intentional deception can raise serious questions of criminal liability, even where the conduct does not satisfy the legal ingredients of rape.
Section 69 is particularly important because it creates a specific criminal offence for certain forms of sexual exploitation through deception, which were previously addressed through different legal interpretations and provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
1. Meaning and Provisions of Section 69 BNS
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, provides:
“Whoever, by deceitful means or making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The explanation to the section clarifies that deceitful means include:
- Inducement for, or false promise of, employment or promotion.
- Marrying by suppressing identity.
The provision also covers a false promise of marriage made without any intention of fulfilling it.
An important distinction is that Section 69 does not criminalise every broken promise of marriage. The essential issue is whether the promise was dishonest from the beginning or whether deceitful means were deliberately employed to obtain sexual intercourse.
2. Essential Ingredients of the Offence
For establishing an offence under Section 69, the prosecution must establish the following essential ingredients:
- Sexual intercourse: The accused must have engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman.
- Deceitful intention: The accused must have employed dishonest or deceptive means.
- False promise of marriage: The promise must have been made without any genuine intention of fulfilling it.
- Causal connection: The sexual intercourse must have been obtained through the alleged deception or false promise.
- Not amounting to rape: The conduct must fall within Section 69 and not constitute the separate offence of rape under Section 63 BNS.
Example: False Promise of Marriage
Example: A man enters into a relationship with a woman and deliberately promises to marry her despite knowing that he has no intention of doing so. He uses this false assurance to establish sexual relations with her. Depending on the evidence, his conduct may attract Section 69 BNS.
However, if two adults enter into a genuine relationship and subsequently separate because of personal differences or changed circumstances, the mere failure to marry does not automatically constitute an offence under this section.
3. Punishment Under Section 69 BNS
Section 69 provides the following punishment:
- Imprisonment which may extend to 10 years.
- Liability to pay a fine.
Under the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the offence is:
- Cognizable.
- Non-bailable.
- Triable by the Court of Session.
These classifications make the provision significant from the perspective of criminal investigation and trial.
4. Important Judicial Decisions and Case Laws
Although Section 69 is a newly introduced provision, several earlier Supreme Court judgments interpreting false promises of marriage under the IPC remain important for understanding the concept of dishonest intention and consent. Courts have also started interpreting Section 69 directly.
1. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608
The Supreme Court distinguished between a false promise of marriage and a genuine promise that is subsequently broken.
The Court laid down two important principles:
- The promise must have been made in bad faith, without any intention of fulfilling it from the beginning.
- The false promise must have a direct connection with the woman’s decision to engage in sexual intercourse.
Importance: This judgment provides an important foundation for determining whether a promise of marriage was genuinely deceptive.
2. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675
The Supreme Court explained the distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise. It observed that courts must examine whether the accused never intended to marry the woman or whether circumstances subsequently prevented the marriage.
Importance: A relationship that ends unsuccessfully cannot automatically be treated as a criminal offence.
Indian Kanoon
3. Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 13 SCC 1
The Supreme Court observed that where the accused makes a promise of marriage without intending to fulfil it and obtains consent for sexual intercourse on that basis, such consent may be vitiated by misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC.
Importance: The judgment explains how dishonest intention at the beginning of a relationship can affect the legal validity of consent.
4. Vandana Mahesh Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra (25 November 2024)
This is an important High Court decision directly concerning Section 69 BNS.
The court interpreted the explanation to Section 69 and observed that a mere false promise of marriage, without the specified circumstances involving suppression of identity or other deceitful means, would not automatically attract the provision.
Importance: The decision highlights the importance of interpreting the statutory explanation and examining the actual circumstances of the alleged deception.
image
IndiaCode
5. Kuldeep Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine All 22 (13 January 2026)
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 69 BNS. The complainant alleged that the accused had repeatedly established sexual relations on false assurances of marriage and concealed his existing marital status.
The Court held that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case and that disputed questions concerning the accused’s marital status, knowledge and intention required examination during trial.
Importance: This judgment demonstrates that concealment of marital status and allegations of deliberate deception may justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
image
SCC Times
6. Mangesh S/o Prabhakar Kewatkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026:BHC-NAG:12393
In its judgment dated 4 September 2026, the Bombay High Court quashed proceedings under Section 69 BNS. The Court observed that the prosecution must demonstrate that the promise of marriage was made without an intention to fulfil it and that the sexual relationship was established because of that promise.
The Court emphasised that a subsequent failure to marry, by itself, does not establish the offence.
Importance: This judgment reinforces the requirement of dishonest intention from the inception of the promise and a connection between the deception and sexual intercourse.
image
Indian Kanoon+1
5. Difference Between Section 69 BNS and Rape
An important feature of Section 69 is that it expressly covers sexual intercourse that does not amount to rape.
Section 63 BNS defines rape and identifies circumstances in which sexual intercourse constitutes that offence. Section 69, on the other hand, creates a separate offence involving sexual intercourse obtained through specified deceitful means or a dishonest promise of marriage.
Therefore, the distinction depends upon the facts, the nature of consent, the accused’s intention and the statutory ingredients of the respective offences.
6. Conclusion
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, represents an important development in Indian criminal law. It seeks to address sexual exploitation through deliberate deception, including false promises of marriage, fraudulent employment assurances and suppression of identity.
However, the provision must be applied carefully. Its purpose is not to criminalise every unsuccessful romantic relationship or every broken promise of marriage. The prosecution must establish dishonest intention and the necessary connection between the deception and sexual intercourse.
The emerging judicial approach reflects the need to maintain a balance between protecting women from exploitation and preventing the misuse of criminal law in genuine consensual relationships.
Ultimately, the most important question under Section 69 is not whether the accused eventually married the woman, but whether the accused intended to deceive her when the promise was originally made. This principle will remain central to the interpretation and application of Section 69 in India’s evolving criminal justice system.
